Me: That's not how browsers work.

Designer: Well, our users need it.

Me: Uh, I'm not arguing with your idea, but no browser supporters that kind of thing

Designer: Well, figure it out because it's not optional.

Me: ... I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm saying that's not something we can do.

Designer: So, what will it take? What do we need to do to get this in?

Me (not actually): motherfucker this isn't a negotiation! I'm not arguing I'm fucking explaining the limitations of web apps!

Web browsers supported by my new project :
Firefox ✔️
Chrome ✔️
Internet Explorer ❌

--- HTTP/3 is coming! And it won't use TCP! ---

A recent announcement reveals that HTTP - the protocol used by browsers to communicate with web servers - will get a major change in version 3!

Before, the HTTP protocols (version 1.0, 1.1 and 2.2) were all layered on top of TCP (Transmission Control Protocol).
TCP provides reliable, ordered, and error-checked delivery of data over an IP network.
It can handle hardware failures, timeouts, etc. and makes sure the data is received in the order it was transmitted in.
Also you can easily detect if any corruption during transmission has occurred.
All these features are necessary for a protocol such as HTTP, but TCP wasn't originally designed for HTTP!
It's a "one-size-fits-all" solution, suitable for *any* application that needs this kind of reliability.
TCP does a lot of round trips between the client and the server to make sure everybody receives their data. Especially if you're using SSL. This results in a high network latency.
So if we had a protocol which is basically designed for HTTP, it could help a lot at fixing all these problems.
This is the idea behind "QUIC", an experimental network protocol, originally created by Google, using UDP.

Now we all know how unreliable UDP is: You don't know if the data you sent was received nor does the receiver know if there is anything missing. Also, data is unordered, so if anything takes longer to send, it will most likely mix up with the other pieces of data. The only good part of UDP is its simplicity.
So why use this crappy thing for such an important protocol as HTTP?
Well, QUIC fixes all these problems UDP has, and provides the reliability of TCP but without introducing lots of round trips and a high latency! (How cool is that?)

The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has been working (or is still working) on a standardized version of QUIC, although it's very different from Google's original proposal.
The IETF also wants to create a version of HTTP that uses QUIC, previously referred to as HTTP-over-QUIC. HTTP-over-QUIC isn't, however, HTTP/2 over QUIC.
It's a new, updated version of HTTP built for QUIC.

Now, the chairman of both the HTTP working group and the QUIC working group for IETF, Mark Nottingham, wanted to rename HTTP-over-QUIC to HTTP/3, and it seems like his proposal got accepted!
So version 3 of HTTP will have QUIC as an essential, integral feature, and we can expect that it no longer uses TCP as its network protocol.

We will see how it turns out in the end, but I'm sure we will have to wait a couple more years for HTTP/3, when it has been thoroughly tested and integrated.

Thank you for reading!

Our Web Technology professor taught us this in the year 2016, he said and I quote,

"HTML frames are the latest technologies in the www and are supported by new generation browsers only, for example Netscape navigator."

You think developing websites cross browsers is hard

Try developing emails.

tables, inline css, Outlook developers on drugs, Gmail developers trying to get high, and abandon most of the things you know about modern web standards

TABLE BASED WEB DESIGN

I was surprised there were no rants about this topic before I realized it was more than a decade back 😳

We've never had it better! So to help add a little perspective for all those ranting about what is unarguably the golden age for web developers... let me fill you in on web dev in the late 90's;

JavaScript was a joke. No seriously! - I once got laughed out of the room for suggesting we try use it for more than disabling a button - (I wanted to check out the new XHR request thingy [read AJAX]).

HTML was simple and purely a markup language (with the exception of the marquee tag). The tags were basically just p,ul,ol,h*,form inputs,img and table and html took 10 minutes to learn. Any style was inline and equally crude - anything that wasn't crude could not be trusted and probably wouldn't render at all in most browsers (never mind render correctly).

There were rumors of a style TAG and something called a cascading style sheet which were received with much skepticism since it went against the old ways and any time saved would be lost writing multiple [IE version specific] style sheets for each browser just to get it to work - so we simply didn't.

No CSS meant the only tags you had to work with to create a structured layout were br, hr and table... so naturally EVERYTHING was in nested tables! JS callback hell can't touch this! - it was not uncommon to have 50+ nested tables all with inline style in a single page which would be edited without any dev tools or linting.

You would spend 30 minutes scanning td tags until your eyes bled to find something, make a change, ftp the file to the server, reload the web page and then spend 10 minutes staring at the devastation on your screen convinced you broke
the internet before spotting an un-closed td tag with your bloodshot eyes.

Tables were not just a silver bullet - they were the ONLY bullet and were in the wild west!

Q: Want an inline form or to align your inputs left?
A: Duh table!

Q: Want a border with round-corners, a shadow or blur?
A: That's easy! Your gonna want to put that table in the center cell of another table then crop a image of the border into 6 smaller images to put in the surrounding cells... oh and then spend 10 minutes fucking with mystical attributes like cell-padding and valign to get them flush.

...But hey at least on the bright-side vertically & horizontally centering stuff was a breeze!

I'm drunk and I'll probably regret this, but here's a drunken rank of things I've learned as an engineer for the past 10 years.

The best way I've advanced my career is by changing companies.

Technology stacks don't really matter because there are like 15 basic patterns of software engineering in my field that apply. I work in data so it's not going to be the same as webdev or embedded. But all fields have about 10-20 core principles and the tech stack is just trying to make those things easier, so don't fret overit.

There's a reason why people recommend job hunting. If I'm unsatisfied at a job, it's probably time to move on.

I've made some good, lifelong friends at companies I've worked with. I don't need to make that a requirement of every place I work. I've been perfectly happy working at places where I didn't form friendships with my coworkers and I've been unhappy at places where I made some great friends.

I've learned to be honest with my manager. Not too honest, but honest enough where I can be authentic at work. What's the worse that can happen? He fire me? I'll just pick up a new job in 2 weeks.

If I'm awaken at 2am from being on-call for more than once per quarter, then something is seriously wrong and I will either fix it or quit.

pour another glass

Qualities of a good manager share a lot of qualities of a good engineer.

When I first started, I was enamored with technology and programming and computer science. I'm over it.

Good code is code that can be understood by a junior engineer. Great code can be understood by a first year CS freshman. The best code is no code at all.

The most underrated skill to learn as an engineer is how to document. Fuck, someone please teach me how to write good documentation. Seriously, if there's any recommendations, I'd seriously pay for a course (like probably a lot of money, maybe 1k for a course if it guaranteed that I could write good docs.)

Related to above, writing good proposals for changes is a great skill.

Almost every holy war out there (vim vs emacs, mac vs linux, whatever) doesn't matter... except one. See below.

The older I get, the more I appreciate dynamic languages. Fuck, I said it. Fight me.

If I ever find myself thinking I'm the smartest person in the room, it's time to leave.

I don't know why full stack webdevs are paid so poorly. No really, they should be paid like half a mil a year just base salary. Fuck they have to understand both front end AND back end AND how different browsers work AND networking AND databases AND caching AND differences between web and mobile AND omg what the fuck there's another framework out there that companies want to use? Seriously, why are webdevs paid so little.

We should hire more interns, they're awesome. Those energetic little fucks with their ideas. Even better when they can question or criticize something. I love interns.

sip

Don't meet your heroes. I paid 5k to take a course by one of my heroes. He's a brilliant man, but at the end of it I realized that he's making it up as he goes along like the rest of us.

Tech stack matters. OK I just said tech stack doesn't matter, but hear me out. If you hear Python dev vs C++ dev, you think very different things, right? That's because certain tools are really good at certain jobs. If you're not sure what you want to do, just do Java. It's a shitty programming language that's good at almost everything.

The greatest programming language ever is lisp. I should learn lisp.

For beginners, the most lucrative programming language to learn is SQL. Fuck all other languages. If you know SQL and nothing else, you can make bank. Payroll specialtist? Maybe 50k. Payroll specialist who knows SQL? 90k. Average joe with organizational skills at big corp? $40k. Average joe with organization skills AND sql? Call yourself a PM and earn $150k.

Tests are important but TDD is a damn cult.

Cushy government jobs are not what they are cracked up to be, at least for early to mid-career engineers. Sure, $120k + bennies + pension sound great, but you'll be selling your soul to work on esoteric proprietary technology. Much respect to government workers but seriously there's a reason why the median age for engineers at those places is 50+. Advice does not apply to government contractors.

Third party recruiters are leeches. However, if you find a good one, seriously develop a good relationship with them. They can help bootstrap your career. How do you know if you have a good one? If they've been a third party recruiter for more than 3 years, they're probably bad. The good ones typically become recruiters are large companies.

Options are worthless or can make you a millionaire. They're probably worthless unless the headcount of engineering is more than 100. Then maybe they are worth something within this decade.

Work from home is the tits. But lack of whiteboarding sucks.

Looks like Apple is the new Microsoft and Microsoft is the new Apple...

I remember when every release of Windows was a catastrophic mess and you had to wait until at least SP2 to get the OS to work in a stable way. And Internet Exploder was *the* browser that broke everything, every time. And there was the whole embrace/extend thing, where they tried to impose their vision of web standards and compatibility, and *everything* you used *had* to come from Microsoft...

And now, it's Apple who fuck up every single OS release, on mobile and desktop, and whose browsers openly shit on web standards (ever try developing anything for Mobile Safari?). Apple's stuff that only works with Apple stuff (down to things like headphone jacks - OOPS, forgot, they dropped those now).

Microsoft is making interesting, beautiful hardware (Surface machines) while Apple is pushing un-innovative, overpriced garbage year in year out. And they're open-sourcing more and more, while Apple walls itself further and further behind its walled "garden". Bleh.

Be interesting to see in 10 years what will have shifted, because it'll change again by then.

Web browsers...

I hate trying to support old browsers.
If we keep supporting old sh*t, people will never stop using it.

"Fuck JavaScript, its such a shitty language" seems to be quite a common rant today. It seems as if JS is actually getting more hate than PHP, which is certainly odd, considering the stereotype.

So, as someone who has spent a lot of time in JS and a lot of time elsewhere, here are my views. Please, discuss your opinions with me as well. I am genuinely interested in an intelligent conversation about this topic.

So here's my background: learned HTML/CSS/JS in that order when I was 12 because I liked computers. I was pretty shitty at JS until U was at least 15, but you get the point, Ive had it sploshing about in my brain for a while.

Now, JS certainly has its quirks, no doubt, but theres nothing about the language itself that I would say makes it shitty. Its a very easy leanguage to use, but isn't overdeveloped like VB.net (Or, as I like to call it, TheresAFunctionForThat)

Most of the hate is centered around JS being used for a very broad range of systems. I doubt JS would be in the rant feed so often if it were to stay in its native ecosystem of web browsers. JS can be used in server backend, web frontent, desktop and mobile applications, and even in some system services (Although this isn't very popular as of yet). People seem to be terrified that one very easy to learn language can go so far. And, oh god, its interpreted... How can a system app run off an interpreted language? That's absurd.

My opinion on JSEverything is that it's progress. Thats what we're all about, right? The technologies already in place are unthreatened by JS, it isn't a gamechanger. The only thing JS integration is doing is making tedius and simple tasks easier. Big companies with large systems aren't going to jump ship and migrate to JS. A startup, however, could save a fucking ton of development time by using a JS framework, however. I want to live in a world where startups can become the next Google, because technology will stagnate when youre trying to protect your fortune, (Look at Apple for fucks sake) but innovation is born of small people with big ideas.

I have a feeling the hate for JS is coming from fear of abandoning what you're already doing. You don't have to do that. JS is only another option (And a very good one, which is why it's becoming so popular).

As for my personal opinion from my experiences... I've left this part til the end on purpose. I love programming and learning and creating, so I've never hated a lamguage, really. It all depends on what I want to do. In the times i've played arpund with JS, I've loved it. Very very easy. The idea of having it on both ends of web development makes a lot of sense too, no conversion, just direct communication. I would imagine this really helps with speed, as well. I wouldn't use it in a complicated system, though. Small things, medium size projects: perfect. Running a bank? No.

So what do you think about this JSUniverse?

so i guess ill use my code.org teacher for this:

"credit card information is encrypted with the public keys"

"lists and arrays are the same thing"

"javascript is a powerful, fast, programming language" (bhahahaha)

"javascript is [only] used in web browsers"

"java and javascript are *extremely similar* but not the same"

All web developers should support up to IE9 without any problems.

Why? Because in Korea, it is normal.

Every person uses that damn Win7, which has either IE9 or IE10. Without IE support, no one will browse your webpage.

Now you would ask us, why don't you use other modern browsers?

We would then ask you, why would you install a new browser that is
1. Buggy
2. Heavy
3. Takes up ram
4. Has so many features
when you have an awesome minimalistic browser that is preinstalled, and works in all Windows? No thanks.

So, if you put a message saying you will soon drop support of IE, it means that you won't target Korea. Just after the support drop, there won't be traffic to your web site.

So what is the point of this rant?
1. We love IE. Lol
2. IE is lightweight, minimalistic, and the fastest browser in the world.
3. All websites should NOT drop support for IE.
4. We don't care whether web devs will have a hard time. We just think websites are built with Wix and Wordpress, and they work in IE, meaning, IE support is the number one priority.
5. If you ever start a business in Korea, and has a website, make sure to hire an senior Korean web dev who has worked with IE for a long time.
6. Here is the tl;dr
Hate us. Period.

So IT just blocked all web browsers at work apart from internet explorer.....

I have been using it for 2 hours and I think I'm about ready to end it all....

*Opens some Computerphile video on YouTube in Chrome Canary*
CPU > hey ho dude, wait a minute..! I can't process all of this in realtime!!! >_<

Alright.. I think I've still got a copy of all their videos sitting somewhere in the file server.. perhaps I could use that instead.
*Opens said video from the file server in SMPlayer*
CPU > aah, thanks man. Now I can allocate 15-ish % of my resources to that and give you a good watching experience.

Web browsers are really great for being the most general-purpose document viewers, application execution environments (remote code execution engines as someone here called it), and overall be one of the most versatile programs on any PC's standard software suite.

But that comes at a price.. performance. And definitely when it comes to featureful fucking WordPress shitsites (shites?), bloated YouTube, Google, Facebook, and all that fucking garbage.. I fucking hate web browsers and this "Web 2.0" that people keep on talking about. Your boatload of JavaScript frameworks just to ease your own fucking development has a real impact when it happens on dozens of tabs, you know.

Besides, can't those framework creators just make it into a "compiler" * of sorts? So that front-end devs can flail their dicks in an shit-infested environment full of libraries and frameworks all they want, but the framework can convert it into plain JS code that the web server can then serve. Or better yet, the JavaScript standard could be improved to actually be usable on its own!

Look, I'm not a front-end dev. Heck, I'm not even a dev to begin with. But what I do know is that efficiency matters, especially at large scale. Web browsers being so overgeneralized and web devs adding a boatload of fucking libraries or frameworks or whatever, it adds up, both to the CPU's and my own temper.

(*) Quote marks because source code to source code isn't really compiling, but then uglified JS looks worse than machine code anyway so meh :/

Would the web be better off, if there was zero frontend scripting? There would be HTML5 video/audio, but zero client side JS.

Browsers wouldn't understand script tags, they wouldn't have javascript engines, and they wouldn't have to worry about new standards and deprecations.

Browsers would be MUCH more secure, and use way less memory and CPU resources.

What would we really be missing?

If you build less bloated pages, you would not really need ajax calls, page reloads would be cheap. Animated menus do not add anything functionally, and could be done using css as well. Complicated webapps... well maybe those should just be desktop/mobile apps.

Pages would contain less annoying elements, no tracking or crypto mining scripts, no mouse tracking, no exploitative spam alerts.

Why don't we just deprecate JS in the browser, completely?

I think it would be worth it.

Did you know that
console.table(arr);
will let you print whole JavaScript arrays in table form in console?

In app web browsers are literally cancer.

This rant is particularly directed at web designers, front-end developers. If you match that, please do take a few minutes to read it, and read it once again.

Web 2.0. It's something that I hate. Particularly because the directive amongst webdesigners seems to be "client has plenty of resources anyway, and if they don't, they'll buy more anyway". I'd like to debunk that with an analogy that I've been thinking about for a while.

I've got one server in my home, with 8GB of RAM, 4 cores and ~4TB of storage. On it I'm running Proxmox, which is currently using about 4GB of RAM for about a dozen VM's and LXC containers. The VM's take the most RAM by far, while the LXC's are just glorified chroots (which nonetheless I find very intriguing due to their ability to run unprivileged). Average LXC takes just 60MB RAM, the amount for an init, the shell and the service(s) running in this LXC. Just like a chroot, but better.

On that host I expect to be able to run about 20-30 guests at this rate. On 4 cores and 8GB RAM. More extensive migration to LXC will improve this number over time. However, I'd like to go further. Once I've been able to build a Linux which was just a kernel and busybox, backed by the musl C library. The thing consumed only 13MB of RAM, which was a VM with its whole 13MB of RAM consumption being dedicated entirely to the kernel. I could probably optimize it further with modularization, but at the time I didn't due to its experimental nature. On a chroot, the kernel of the host is used, meaning that said setup in a chroot would border near the kB's of RAM consumption. The busybox shell would be its most important RAM consumer, which is negligible.

I don't want to settle with 20-30 VM's. I want to settle with hundreds or even thousands of LXC's on 8GB of RAM, as I've seen first-hand with my own builds that it's possible. That's something that's very important in webdesign. Browsers aren't all that different. More often than not, your website will share its resources with about 50-100 other tabs, because users forget to close their old tabs, are power users, looking things up on Stack Overflow, or whatever. Therefore that 8GB of RAM now reduces itself to about 80MB only. And then you've got modern web browsers which allocate their own process for each tab (at a certain amount, it seems to be limited at about 20-30 processes, but still).. and all of its memory required to render yours is duplicated into your designated 80MB. Let's say that 10MB is available for the website at most. This is a very liberal amount for a webserver to deal with per request, so let's stick with that, although in reality it'd probably be less.

10MB, the available RAM for the website you're trying to show. Of course, the total RAM of the user is comparatively huge, but your own chunk is much smaller than that. Optimization is key. Does your website really need that amount? In third-world countries where the internet bandwidth is still in the order of kB/s, 10MB is *very* liberal. Back in 2014 when I got into technology and webdesign, there was this rule of thumb that 7 seconds is usually when visitors click away. That'd translate into.. let's say, 10kB/s for third-world countries? 7 seconds makes that 70kB of available network bandwidth.

Web 2.0, taking 30+ seconds to load a web page, even on a broadband connection? Totally ridiculous. Make your website as fast as it can be, after all you're playing along with 50-100 other tabs. The faster, the better. The more lightweight, the better. If at all possible, please pursue this goal and make the Web a better place. Efficiency matters.

The brief history of Facebook open source:
- FB releases React under an oppressive licence that tells "woopsie, can't sue FB if you use React"
- a lot of money goes into making React popular to gain leverage from mass adoption
- VMware bans React in their company
- FB releases Flux to bring state management. It flops. Replaced by what some Russian student wrote in several evenings (Redux)
- Preact is released. It's faster than React, and it has MIT licence. Vue beats React in GitHub stars.
- Under mass pressure, FB changes React's licence to MIT. Initial plan to gain leverage fails spectacularly.
- FB releases Flow Types. It flops. Replaced by TypeScript.
- FB releases their own app market for React Native. It flops.
- FB releases Relay. It flops. Replaced by Apollo.
- FB tries to push React.Suspense for the whole JS landscape to obey and comply to how it works. Community says "Fuck You".
- FB releases react-native-web. It flops.
- Web Components are out in all browsers, adopted as a standard. React doesn't support them.
- Google releases Lit, a virtual DOM framework on top of Web Components to fuck with React. It's a massive success.
- React 18 is out. Still no Web Components support.
- (you are here)

Unlike you girlfriend :D

Dear Web Developers,
I say this on behalf of most of the people(I think) that nobody at any want of life wants something to play automatically on a website. Seriously, I would rather you use my browser to mine cryptocurrencies than use my speakers.

Modern web frontend is giving me a huge headache...

Gazillion frameworks, css preprocessors, transpilers, task runners, webpack, state management, templating, Rxjs, vector graphics,async,promises, es6,es7,babel,uglifying,minifying,beautifying,modules,dependecy injection....

All this for programming apps that happen to run inside browsers on a protocol which was designed to display simple text pages...

This is insanity. It cannot go on like this for long. I pray for webasm and elm to rescue me from this chaos.

I work now as a fullstack dev as my first job but my next job is definitely going to be backend/native stuff for desktop or mobile. It seems those areas are much less crazy.

Fuck web dev.
I dabbled in many areas but I do web dev most often. And seriously: fuck web dev. Your site has to work on multiple browsers. Multiple screen resolutions. The code has to be tiny for load time. The images have to work for every resolution and still be small. The styling can look different in different browsers. So many useful javascript features are only supported by modern browsers. An on top of that: IE.
I’ve gotten quite good at all of this, but still: it’s such a fucking pain.

Can't we all just stop being selfish and have one web standard?

Nightmare for web developers -
What if mobile browsers can be resizable ! 😨😨

All motherfuckers who set their stupid website to try to send you notifications must burn in hell after they die. I am tired to setting every browser I install to always block notifications because of that stupid morons.

To this day I can't figure out why people still drink the windows koolaid.

It's less secure, slower, bloatier (is that a word?), Comes with ads, intrudes on privacy, etc. People say it's easier to use than Linux, but 99% of what anyone does happens on a chrome based web browser which is the same on all systems!

When it comes to dev, it boggles the mind that people will virtualize a Linux kernel in Windows to use npm, docker, k8s, pip, composer, git, vim, etc. What is Windows doing for you but making your life more complicated? All your favorite browsers and IDEs work on Linux, and so will your commands out of the box.

Maybe an argument can be made for gaming, but that's a chicken an egg scenario. Games aren't built for Linux because the Linux market is too small to be worth supporting, not that the games won't work on it...

Worst. 2 am on campus, js file for a web app project. It didn't work, no exceptions thrown, no errors. I call the assistant teacher. He calls the teacher. Teacher calls the head of department. Four of us staring at the screen for an hour, trying different browsers, environments etc
3 am, switch cases had semicolons rather than colons. Sleepy coding is the worst.

Chrome, Firefox, and yes even you Opera, Falkon, Midori and Luakit. We need to talk, and all readers should grab a seat and prepare for some reality checks when their favorite web browsers are in this list.

I've tried literally all of them, in search for a lightweight (read: not ridiculously bloated) web browser. None of them fit the bill.

Yes Midori, you get a couple of bonus points for being the most lightweight. Luakit however.. as much as I like vim in my terminal, I do not want it in a graphical application. Not to mention that just like all the others you just use webkit2gtk, and therefore are just as bloated as all the others. Lightweight my ass! But programmable with Lua, woo! Not like Selenium, Chrome headless, ... does that for any browser. And that's it for the unique features as far as I'm concerned. One is slow, single-threaded and lightweight-ish (Midori) and another has vim keybindings in an application that shouldn't (Luakit).

Pretty much all of them use webkit2gtk as their engine, and pretty much all of them launch a separate process for each tab. People say this is more secure, but I have serious doubts about that. You're still running all these processes as the same user, and they all have full access to the X server they run under (this is also a criticism against user separation on a single X session in general). The only thing it protects against is a website crashing the browser, where only that tab and its process would go down. Which.. you know.. should a webpage even be able to do that?

But what annoys me the most is the sheer amount of memory that all of these take. With all due respect all of you browsers, I am not quite prepared to give 8 fucking gigabytes - half the memory in this whole box! - just for a dozen or so tabs. I shouldn't have to move my web browser to another lesser used 16GB box, just to prevent this one from going into fucking swap from a dozen tabs. And before someone has a go at the add-ons, there's 4 installed and that's it. None of them are even close to this complete and utter memory clusterfuck. It's the process separation. Each process consumes half a GB of memory, and there's around a dozen of them in a usual browsing session. THAT is the real problem. And I want to get rid of it.

Browsers are at their pinnacle of fucked up in my opinion, literally to the point where I'm seriously considering elinks. Being a sysadmin, I already live my daily life in terminals anyway. As such I also do have resources. But because of that I also associate every process with its cost to run it, in terms of resources required. Web browsers are easily at the top of the list.

I want to put 8GB into perspective. You can store nearly 2 entire DVD movies in that memory. However media players used to play them (such as SMPlayer) obviously don't do that. They use 60-80MB on average to play the whole movie. They also require far less processing power than YouTube in a web browser does, even when you download that exact same video with youtube-dl (either streamed within the media player or externally). That is what an application should be.

Let's talk a bit about these "complicated" websites as well. I hate to break it to you framework web devs, but you're a dime a dozen. The competition is high between web devs for that exact reason. And websites are not complicated. The document itself is plain old HTML, yes even if your framework converts to it in the background. That's the skeleton of your document, where I would draw a parallel with documents in office suites that are more or less written in XML. CSS.. oh yes, markup. Embolden that shit, yes please! And JavaScript.. oh yes, that pile of shit that's been designed in half a day, and has a framework called fucking isEven (which does exactly what it says on the tin, modulo 2 be damned). Fancy some macros in your text editor? Yes, same shit, different pile.

Imagine your text editor being as bloated as a web browser. Imagine it being prone to crashing tabs like a web browser. Imagine it being so ridiculously slow to get anything done in your productivity suite. But it's just the usual with web browsers, isn't it? Maybe Gopher wasn't such a bad idea after all... Oh and give me another update where I have to restart the browser when I commit the heinous act of opening another tab, just because you had to update your fucking CA certs again. Yes please!

Pulled this from a web site's privacy policy. Remember, just because there's a switch doesn't mean anyone has to abide to that rule.

Browser “Do Not Track” Signals:  Most browsers contain a “do-not-track” setting.  In general, when a “do-not-track” setting is active, the user’s browser notifies other websites that the user does not want their personal information and online behavior to be tracked and used, for example, for behavioral advertising.  As required by recent Shine the Light law amendments we are required to inform you that, as is the case with most websites, we do not honor or alter our behavior when a user to one of our Websites has activated the “do-not-track” setting on his/her browser.

Me as a mobile app developer trying to add a button to a page of a .Net website:
So, what do i need to do?

Web developer:
Oh that's easy. You need to edit that template which produces html, add an event in there that will call a javascript function, which is in a .js file, which is generated from a typescript file. Than you should give that button a style. Simply by opening up that .less file here and adding a class which will be translated to css later. In that c# file over there you add a bundle reference which contains the css and js files, but before that, they must be minified. In that other c# file, you add a controller that handles your button.
Aaand... take care of new js features and css features. Most browsers don't support them. Those cool C#7 features you love so much... not in this project. Our build servers don't support C#7. Those new features are evil anyway.

😭

There seems to be a lot of hatret for JavaScript. I fully understand and endorse that.

So how can we get another language supported in web browsers and which language should it be?

When you thought web browsers use too much memory, introducing a document scanning app that uses only 2,7 GB of ram.

Just a slight memory leak.

Don't you hate it when your testers file an issue under the mobile app project for bugs in the web app, because they happen to be using the web app on their mobile phone browsers and suddenly its the mobile app dev's fault?

For a new project I first try to get an overview about the specifications, hosting and platform.

Depending on this information I decide which language and frameworks (if any) to use.

Basically always the first part I create is the backend, so I have all the data interfaces ready. For web stuff Postman is really useful.

Later on I start with the frontend, get myself really angry because I hate frontend.
Then I get into a hate-overdrive because browsers suck and I delete everything and quit.

I'm currently working in a web application project with multiple environments for testing, and we need to give support to all browsers.
So when a 'defect' is iddentifyed by someone, we make sure we know all the previous constraints to solve it quicker.

One of these days, this "tester" comes to us:

Tester: There is a deffect in this X screen.
IT: Ok. Can you tell me what browser you were using in the test?

Tester: The same as you. "H T T P : / / localhost:8080"

:D

Static HTML pages are better than "web apps".

Static HTML pages are more lightweight and destroy "web apps" in performance, and also have superior compatibility. I see pretty much no benefit in a "web app" over a static HTML page. "Web apps" appear like an overhyped trend that is empty inside.

During my web browsing experience, static HTML pages have consistently loaded faster and more reliably, since the browser is immediately served with content useful for consumption, whereas on JavaScript-based web "apps", the useful content comes in **last**, after the browser has worked its way through a pile of script.

For example, an average-sized Wikipedia article (30 KB wikitext) appears on screen in roughly two seconds, since MediaWiki uses static HTML. Everipedia, in comparison, is a ReactJS app. Guess how long that one needs. Upwards of three times as long!

Making a page JavaScript-based also makes it fragile. If an exception occurs in the JavaScript, the user might end up with a blank page or an endless splash screen, whereas static HTML-based pages still show useful content.

The legacy (2014-2020) HTML-based Twitter.com loaded a user profile in under four seconds. The new react-based web app not only takes twice as long, but sometimes fails to load at all, showing the error "Oops something went wrong! But don't fret – it's not your fault." to be displayed. This could not happen on a static HTML page.

The new JavaScript-based "polymer" YouTube front end that is default since August 2017 also loads slower. While the earlier HTML-based one was already playing the video, the new one has just reached its oh-so-fancy skeleton screen.

It would once have been unthinkable to have a website that does not work at all without JavaScript, but now, pretty much all popular social media sites are JavaScript-dependent. The last time one could view Twitter without JavaScript and tweet from devices with non-sophisticated browsers like Nintendo 3DS was December 2020, when they got rid of the lightweight "M2" mobile website.

Sometimes, web developers break a site in older browser versions by using a JavaScript feature that they do not support, or using a dependency (like Plyr.js) that breaks the site. Static HTML is immune against this failure.

Static HTML pages also let users maximize speed and battery life by deactivating JavaScript. This obviously will disable more sophisticated site features, but the core part, the text, is ready for consumption.

Not to mention, single-page sites and fancy animations can be implemented with JavaScript on top of static HTML, as GitHub.com and the 2018 Reddit redesign do, and Twitter's 2014-2020 desktop front end did.

From the beginning, JavaScript was intended as a tool to complement, not to replace HTML and CSS. It appears to me that the sole "benefit" of having a "web app" is that it appears slightly more "modern" and distinguished from classic web sites due to use of splash screens and lack of the browser's loading animation when navigating, while having oh-so-fancy loading animations and skeleton screens inside the website. Sorry, I prefer seeing content quickly over the app-like appearance of fancy loading screens.

Arguably, another supposed benefit of "web apps" is that there is no blank page when navigating between pages, but in pretty much all major browsers of the last five years, the last page observably remains on screen until the next navigated page is rendered sufficiently for viewing. This is also known as "paint holding".

On any site, whenever I am greeted with content, I feel pleased. Whenever I am greeted with a loading animation, splash screen, or skeleton screen, be it ever so fancy (e.g. fading in an out, moving gradient waves), I think "do they really believe they make me like their site more due to their fancy loading screens?! I am not here for the loading screens!".

To make a page dependent on JavaScript and sacrifice lots of performance for a slight visual benefit does not seem worthed it.

Quote:

> "Yeah, but I'm building a webapp, not a website" - I hear this a lot and it isn't an excuse. I challenge you to define the difference between a webapp and a website that isn't just a vague list of best practices that "apps" are for some reason allowed to disregard. Jeremy Keith makes this point brilliantly.
>
> For example, is Wikipedia an app? What about when I edit an article? What about when I search for an article?
>
> Whether you label your web page as a "site", "app", "microsite", whatever, it doesn't make it exempt from accessibility, performance, browser support and so on.
>
> If you need to excuse yourself from progressive enhancement, you need a better excuse.

– Jake Archibald, 2013

Just wrote my own webpack plugin for VueJS.

In serverless application there isn't a good way to pre render a single page web application as there is no server to do this task.

What we can do is use serverside rendering with webpack to locally (or in CI) generate the static HTML markup and include them in a template file like EJS.

In that way, the client browsers would not have to wait for the initial render and the search engines will also be happy.

This feels good! Time to upload it as a npm package 😇

I just installed Opera Mini on my PSP. That alone isn't very exciting on its own, although I am stoked that my website does in fact render on a device from 2009. With the helpful guidance of a laptop from 2004 that's doing the hotspot duties for this thing.

No, what really got me stoked is that Opera still supports these old platforms, and how small they managed to make it. The .jar file for Opera Mini 4.5 is ~800kB large. There's a .jad file as well but it's negligible in size and seems to be a signature of sorts.

Let that sink in for a moment. This entire web browser is 800kB. Firefox meanwhile consistently consumes 800 MEGABYTES.. in MEMORY. So then, I went to think for a moment, how on earth did they manage to cram an entire functioning web browser in 800kB? Hell, what makes up a web browser anyway?

The answer to that question I got to is as follows. You need an engine to render the web page you receive. You need a UI to make the browser look nice. And finally you need a certificate store to know which TLS certificates to trust. And while probably difficult to make, I think it should be possible to do in 800k. Seriously, think about it. How would you go *make* a web browser? Because I've already done that in the past.

Earlier I heard that you need graphics, audio, wasm, yada yada backends too.. no. Give your head a shake. Graphics are the responsibility of the graphics driver. A web browser shouldn't dabble with those at all. Audio, you connect to PulseAudio (in Linux at least) and you're done. Hell I don't even care about ALSA or OSS here. You just connect to the stuff that does that job for you. And WebAssembly.. God I could rant about that shit all day. How about making it a native application? Not like actual Assembly is used for BIOS and low-level drivers. And that we already have a better language for the more portable stuff called C.

Seriously, think about it. Opera - a reputable browser vendor - managed to do it in 800kB on a 12 year old device. Don't go full wank on your framework shit on the comments. And don't you fucking dare to tell me that there's more to it. They did it for crying out loud. Now you take a look at your shitpile for JS code and refactor that shit already. Thank you.

Pull-to-refresh is useless.

If you are a mobile app developer, please get rid of pull-to-refresh. Your users will thank you.

I have the impression that mobile app developers choose to implement the pull-to-refresh gimmick just in order to make their app comply with a design trend. It seems like a desperate attempt to appear "modern" and "fancy", not because of the actual usefulness of the gesture.

Pull-to-refresh is one of those things that are well-intended but backfire. It appears helpful on first sight, but turns out to be a burden.

It takes effort and cognitive strain to avoid triggering a pull-to-refresh. The user can't use the app relaxed but has to walk on eggshells.

Every unwanted refresh wastes battery power, mobile data (if it is an Internet-connected app), and can lead to the loss of form data.

To avoid pull-to-refresh, the user has to resort to finger gymnastics like a shorter swipe for scrolling up or swiping slightly up before down. Pull-to-refresh could even be triggered while pinch-zooming in or out near the top of a page, if the touchscreen does not recognize one of the two fingers.

Pull-to-refresh also interferes with the double-tap-swipe zoom gesture. If one of the two taps are not recognized, a swipe-down to zoom in can trigger a pull-to-refresh instead.

To argue "if you don't like pull-to-refresh, just don't use it" is like blaming a person who stepped on a mine, since the person moved and the mine was stationary.

A refresh button can be half a second away in the menu bar, URL bar, or a submenu, where it is unlikely to be pressed accidentally. There is no need for a gesture that does more harm than good.

Using a mobile app with pull-to-refresh feels like having Windows StickyKeys forcibly enabled at all times. The refresh circle animation sticks to the finger.

If the user actually wants to refresh, pull-to-refresh is slower than a refresh button in a menu if the page is not at the top, meaning pull-to-refresh is useless as a shortcut anyway if the page is in any other position than the top.

An alternative to pull-to-refresh is pull-for-details. Samsung did it in some of their apps. Pulling down against the top reveals additional information such as the count and total size of selected items.

If you own a website, add this CSS to make browsing your website on the pre-installed Android web browser not a headache:

html,body { overscroll-behavior: none; }

Why is this necessary? In 2019, Google took the ability to deactivate the pull-to-refresh gesture on their Chrome browser for Android OS away from users. On Chrome for Android, pull-to-refresh can only be disabled on the server side, not the user side. The avalanche of complaints? Neglected.

Good thing several third-party browsers let the user turn off this severe headache.

Exclude Apple from any web standard influence in the future. They clearly don’t give a fuck about the web from the evidence of them purposefully downgrading their PWA features just because they are salty that the EU forced them to allow other non-WebKit browsers on iOS. What a bunch of pieces of shit. Fuck Apple for being a fucking corporate spoiled child.

Fucking jesus christ, for some reason in chromium-based browsers if you have a table that fills up to the full height of the parent using flexbox rules, if you go to print it, it will fucking

i forgor 💀

and give it a height of minimum content height. The solution is to ALSO give it height: 100%;

Google completely unhelpful (I guess it's too specific and most people don't write web services specifically made for printing out?) but luckily it only took me like 3 guesses to figure out on my own.

But I could have easily seen this completely pissing me off to the point of quitting. FireFox doesn't have this issue.

RELATED TANGENT RANT:

Why the fuck is the default to use headers, footers, margin, and no background images (colors) ?!?!?!? The default printing for browsers COMPLETELY FUCKS UP THE PRINT

God FUCKING damnit.

Firefox and Chrome removing FTP support in 2021 was a terrible decision.

Web browsers were simply the more convenient FTP browsers, more than file managers, due to browsers' built-in multimedia capabilities like photo viewing and opening documents, distinct purple highlighting of already opened directories and files, browsing history, familiar mouse shortcuts like middle click for new tab, and no possibility of accidental writes due to a botched drag-and-drop operation or similar.

If I wanted to browse an FTP server in "read-only mode", web browsers used to be the preferred choice.

Web development is the worst!
I still cannot understand why it is not possible for browsers to correctly support all official specs... Exceptions here and there, dirty fix for this one, add a little margin here, hide this...
The daily struggle never stops.
Don't even get me startet with PHP!
Next round is on me ;)

The interface for time input in outlook Web on mobile is driving me crazy!! It's not as if there was a built in control that is well supported in all modern browsers.... Right

1. You can't tap on an hour to select it
2. You can only select by scrolling
3. The scrolling is "smooth scrolling". So you have N O fucking chance to select the time slot you wanted. After too much time has passed you just give up and accept that your meeting will be at 09:57
4. In order to go up in time you constantly activate the"pull to refresh" feature of Chrome.

I'm definitely no mindless MS hater but this I cannot tolerate.

Hello guys. Today I bring you my list of top 3 programs that use too much memory

🪟 Windows 10+
⚛️ Web browsers, Electron
🐋 Docker containers

Honorable mention: ☕Java

The developers of those programs should put more effort into optimizing memory usage

HTML & CSS.

To me they just feel wrong.

I have been working with them for a little over 20 years now, and it feels like very little has improved. Sure we learned to make things look a bit nicer, we got new tags and properties, but the syntax is still horrible.

The fact that both are replaced by other imperfect languages (haml, jade, less, sass, etc) is just a confirmation that their paradigms are about as fucked up and impossible to exterminate as cobol.

Which points at another problem: browsers, and how slow the web upgrade cycle is — adding native support for nested style definitions in css, or replacing html with a json document seems like a trivial problem, if it weren't for the dozens of browsers and the excruciating pace at which they can adopt standards.

You know what would be cool for testing web pages?

A chrome window that would mirror my mouse movements, clicks and key presses into a firefox/opra/ie browser so I could test a bunch of browsers at once in the same way

As I already said on devrant, I'm a freelance web developer and I also often sell my services for teaching, loving that. Currently I'm teaching PHP with 30 students and it's going very well.

But yesterday, I received an offer for giving another course next month, this time on HTML and CSS, for a company I don't know yet. Almost every line of this email is wrong, outdated by 20 years, or just basically meaningless...

So I thought I could do my best to translate this as close as possible to the original, preserving the wrong formulations too, just for you devranters fellas.

"Hello,

I have an offer for a 2 days course for 5 people (level 1+ and/or 2), on HTML5 and CSS3. Below, the program :

1. XHTML AND CSS2 INTRODUCTION

Advantages and benefits of change

Understanding compatibility for different versions of browsers

HTML, XHTML, CSS edition tools : presentation of the different tools

The CSS language : different types of selectors : class of selector, identifier of selector, contextual selectors, grouped selectors

Blocks of text, boxes of text

The CSS1, CSSP, CSS2 properties

Relative and absolute measures units

2. LAYOUT TECHNIQUES

Full CSS, XHTML websites demo

Positioning with the position property, positioning with the float property

Columns creation

Layout for forms

Layout for data tables

Layout for menus

3. INTRODUCTION TO SVG (SCALABLE VECTOR GRAPHICS)

Role and importance of SVG

Using SVG on client side : basic shapes

SVG structure of document, tags examples

Using CSS styles with SVG

Different integration methods for SVG in a XHTML document

4. OPTIMISATION OF JAVASCRIPT CODE

Introduction to DOM and Javascript

Access to document objects : different access techniques, using this keyword, create elements dynamically

Positioning elements with the help of Javascript : positionning elements relatively to the mouse, move elements

Show/hide elements for creating hierarchical menus

Code optimisation techniques : using objects, objects litterals, loops optimisation

Can you please give me your availability ?"

Seriously...

CSS-fucking-1 ! Is it a course for dinosaurs ?

...And if only my rant was just about the program...

It's totally impossible to cover all these subjects in only 2 days with people of different levels and experience.

The guy exactly said to me : "don't worry about the program, it's an old text but they agreed to it anyway. They just want to learn HTML and CSS, some of them already know it but want to learn more, and the others are total beginers.".

And here is the meaning for the "(level 1+ and/or 2)" part in the email.

So... Surprizingly, I accepted the offer, but asked for at least a 3rd day. I'm waiting for their answer, but I'll do it anyway, adapting the course content to the actual students knowledge. I need the money, after all.

Wish me luck...

It's just sad that these formation companies are selling bullshit to clients that just want to learn something useful. It's too often like that, they sell shitty/useless programs and we have to catch up in real time with students that don't understand why they don't learn what was told to them.

Aren't you, software engineer, ashamed of being employed by Apple? How can you work for a company that lives and shit on the heads of millions of fellow developers like a giant tech leech?
Assuming you can find a sounding excuse for yourself, pretending its market's fault and not your shitty greed that lets you work for a company with incredibly malicious product, sales, marketing and support policies, how can you not feel your coders-pride being melted under BILLIONS of complains for whatever shitty product you have delivered for them?
Be it a web service that runs on 1980 servers with still the same stack (cough cough itunesconnect, membercenter, bug tracker, etc etc etc etc) incompatible with vast majority of modern browsers around (google at least sticks a "beta" close to it for a few years, it could work for a few decades for you);
be it your historical incapacity to build web UI;
be it the complete lack of any resemblance of valid documentation and lets not even mention manuals (oh you say that the "status" variable is "the status of the object"? no shit sherlock, thank you and no, a wwdc video is not a manual, i don't wanna hear 3 hours of bullshit to know that stupid workaround to a stupid uikit api you designed) for any API you have developed;
be it the predatory tactics on smaller companies (yeah its capitalism baby, whatever) and bending 90 degrees with giants like Amazon;
be it the closeness (christ, even your bugtracker is closed and we had to come up with openradar to share problems that you would anyway ignore for decades);
be it a desktop ui api that is so old and unmaintained and so shitty, but so shitty, that you made that cancer of electron a de facto standard for mainstream software on macos;
be it a IDE that i am disgusted to even name, xcrap, that has literally millions of complains for the same millions of issues you dont even care to answer to or even less try to justify;
be it that you dont disclose your long term plans and then pretend us to production-test and workaround-fix your shitty non-production ready useless new OS features;
be it that a nervous breakdown on a stupid little guy on the other side of the planet that happens to have paid to you dozens of thousands of euros (in mandatory licences and hardware) to actually let you take an indecent cut out of his revenues cos there is no other choice in a monopoly regime, matter zero to you;
Assuming all of these and much more:
How can you sleep at night with all the screams of the devs you are exploiting whispering in you mind? Are all the money your earn worth?

** As someone already told you elsewhere, HAVE SOME FUCKING PRIDE, shitty people AND WRITE THE FUCKING DOCS AND FIX THE FUCKING BUGS you lazy motherfuckers, your are paid more than 99.99% of people on earth, move your fucking greasy little fingers on that fucking keyboard. **

PT2: why the fuck did you remove the ESC key from your shitty keyboards you fuckshits? is it cos autocomplete is slower than me searching the correct name of a function on stackoverflow and hence ESC key is useless? at least your hardware colleagues had the decency of admitting their error and rolling back some of the uncountable "questionable "hardware design choices (cough cough ...magic mouse... cough golden charging cables not compatible with your own devices.. cough )?

Some blocker like uBlock origin should come pre-installed by now. I mean at least the malicious stuff could get blocked and the online world could be a bit more safe. Legit, not-in-the-face ads are still okay at times, I guess :/

You probably hate bootstrap and jQuery, as I do, but if you block CDN paths for these libraries, you'd probably never see the internet as it was intended.

Side note: web devs, please learn media queries, vm and em for font sizes, and etc. You really don't need complicated stuff, browsers already have your back, I promise.

Here's a hypothetical scenario: what if all web-developers in the world united and collectively decided to act as if there are no other browsers except Firefox and Chrome?
I know I do. Of course, everything I ever made targeted younger audiences, so only idiots, Apple fanboys and the ocassional Opera user used anything else...

We make a small server product with a web based admin system, as we were going to have limited customers who will use this (usually just the engineers) and this was not on the www. We dropped all support for all browsers other then chrome/firefox. No more IE/safari bugs for us XD

People who willingly install and use development branch web browsers and then send inages of exploded websites when using said browsers.

So this guy I know mentions a 7/10 proficiency in web development on his resume and doesn't know about the web console in browsers.

I think Chromium is definitely one of the best and most useful Open Source Projects, because so many modern technologies are based on it:

- Chrome + Chromium Browser
- Electron (Which is in my opinion the future of software development, as long as Web Apps don't have that many possibilities)
- Android WebViews
- Chrome OS (and Chromium OS)
- Many other Browsers like Opera, Samsung Mobile Browser, Vivaldi…

I think without Chromium the Internet wouldn't be the same today. It helped to popularize WebApps and helped to set many modern web Standards. Also, in addition with V8 it paved the way for modern JavaScript, as it provided (and still provides) developers and so also users with massive performance boosts.

Apps having their own image picker is annoying.

I hate when apps don't have option to upload image by picking the system picker but instead show their own picker which sucks, you can only pick recent ones otherwise you need to scroll down, there is no search option or any filter at all, just allowing system picker is better, it allows all kinds of searching and Google photos picker also allows searching by dates, faces etc. No point reinventing that, I hope it becomes mandatory to only use system filepicker like it's in web browsers, this can also avoid giving access to entire filesystem when you only need to upload one image.

I can't imagine programming before web browsers had tabs. I don't think I could live in such a dark, twisted, masochistic world.

I don’t understand how Microsoft can continue to ship functionality in modern versions of SharePoint that only work on IE11 (open in Explorer, open in InfoPath, Skype presence integration). The only reason my company has to make web apps compatible with that browser is because of the hot garbage that is IE11. Just kill the functionality and kill the browser. Please.

Yes I know *why* they only work in IE11, it’s because activex is a massive security hole, but just kill the functionality if you can’t recreate it in modern browsers.

My boss has been working in web development for roughly 10 years now.

Today he learned about the existence of try/catch in JavaScript and asked me in which browsers it's
supported in 😢

Apple, please roll out the latest Safari to older iOS versions at last! Don't let it stay the new Internet Explorer making us web developers mad about obscure issues that customers face having to use outdated browsers, overshadowing any joy about your latest achievements.

Dependency hell is the largest problem in Linux.

On Windows, I just download an executeable (.exe) file, and it just works like a charm! But Linux sometimes needs me to install dependencies.

At one point, I nearly broke my operating system while trying to solve dependencies. I noticed that some existing applications refused to start due to some GLIBC error gore. I thought to myself "that thing ain't gonna boot the next time", so I had to restore the /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ folder from a backup.

And then there is a new level of lunacy called "conflicting dependencies". I never had such an error on Windows. But when I wanted to try out both vsftpd and proFTPd on Linux, I get this error, whereas on Windows, I simply download an .exe file and it WORKS! Even on Android OS, I simply install an APK file of Amaze File Manager or Primitive FTPd or both and it WORKS! Both in under a minute. But on Linux, I get this crap. Sure, Linux has many benefits, but if one can't simply install a program without encountering cryptic errors that take half a day to troubleshoot and could cause new whack-a-mole-style errors, Linux's poor market share is no surprise.

Someone asked "Why not create portable applications" on Unix/Linux StackExchange. Portable applications can not just be copied on flash drives and to other computers, but allow easily installing multiple versions on a system. A web developer might do so to test compatibility with older browsers. Here is an answer to that question:

> The major argument [for shared libraries] is security, that if there is a vulnerability in a commonly-used library, then only that library has to be updated […] you don't have to have 4 different versions of a library installed

I just want my software to work! Period. I don't mind having multiple versions of libraries, I simply want it to WORK! To hell with "good reasons" for why it doesn't, and then being surprised why Linux has a poor market share. Want to boost Linux market share? SOLVE THIS DAMN ISSUE!.

Understand that the average computer user wants stuff to work out of the box, like it does in Windows.

MS needs to stop allowing uninstallers to open web browsers.

CORS is shit
Stupid useless shit that protects from nothing. It is harmful mechanism that does nothing but randomly blocks browser from accessing resources - nothing more.

Main idea of CORS is that if server does not send proper header to OPTIONS request, browser will block other requests to that server.

What does stupid cocksuckers that invented CORS, think their retarded shit can protect from?
- If server is malicious, it will send any header required to let you access it.
- If client has malicious intents - he will never use your shit browser to make requests, he will use curl or any ther tool available. Also if server security bases on something as unreliable as http headers it sends to the client - its a shit server, and CORS will not save it.

Can anyone give REAL examples when CORS can really protect from anything?

Browsers are really terrible with printing.

This is annoying when building web apps for internal use in businesses.

There should be a JavaScript way to select (or at least ask the user to confirm) what is printed on the borders of the page instead of the standard date, time, url, page x of x.

Sharing a first look at a prototype Web Components library I am working on for "fun"

TL;DR left side is pivot (grouped) table, right side is declarative code for it (Everything except the custom formatting is done declaratively, but has the option to be imperative as well).

====

TL;DR (Too long, did read):

I'm challenging myself to be creative with the cool new things that browsers offer us. Lani so far has a focus on extreme extensibility, abstraction from dependencies, and optional declarative style.

It's also going to be a micro CSS framework, but that's taking the back-seat.

I wanted to highlight my design here with this table, and the code that is written to produce this result.

First, you can see that the <lani-table> element is reading template, data, and layout information from its child elements. Besides the custom highlighting code (Yellow background in the "Tags" column, and green gradient in the "Score" column), everything can be done without opening even a single script tag.

The <lani-data-source> element is rather special. It's an abstraction of any data source, and you, as a developer can add custom data sources and hook up the handlers to your whim (the element itself uses the "type" attribute to choose a handler. In this case, the handler is "download" which simply sends a fetch request to the server once and downloads the result to memory).

Templates are stored in an html file, not string literals (Which I think really fucks the code) and loaded async, then cached into an object (so that the network tab doesn't get crowded, even if we can count on the HTTP cache). This also has the benefit of allowing me to parse the HTML templates once and then caching the parsed result in memory, so templates are never re-parsed from string no matter how many custom elements are created.

Everything is "compiled" into a single, minified .js file that you include on your page.

I know it's nothing extraordinary, but for something that doesn't need to be compiled, transpiled, packaged, shipped, and kissed goodnight, I think it's a really nice design and I hope to continue work on it and improve it over time

In my experience, any BE dev or old architect/lead programmer that says they “can do frontend” does shit like writing Ajax calls in script tags directly in the html. They are the ones who add style attributes directly in html. They are the ones who google how to center a div and they still use float positioning because all of them are old, arrogant BE devs who get caught in a single framework who convince themselves they are an expert. They can’t give any good UX advice. They don’t know how to use a screen reader. They don’t know what WCAG means. They don’t constantly keep up to date on what browsers are supporting and what’s being released in the unstable versions. They don’t know what a web component is. They don’t know what a closure is. They don’t know anything about optimizing web perf metrics. They couldn’t tell you what web crawlers look for. They couldn’t tell you anything about design principles and anti-patterns. They don’t know how to manage a web application that will be seen by millions AND keep it nice, shiny, and refactorable on the code side. What do they really fucking know? how to write an MVC app? How to connect APIs and integrate code that other people wrote? I do full stack all day and writing anything not-client-facing is super easy.

Take that stick out of your ass and get over yourself you asshole. You haven’t written anything close to amazing even though you constantly act like you’re a god-tier programmer and your shit doesn’t stink.

Hit the books like the rest of us you fuck.

The Frontend is anything but fucking easy.

One day I helped another teacher with setting up his backend with the currently running Nginx reverse-proxy, peace of cake right?

Then I found out the only person with ssh access was not available, OK then just reset the root password and we're ready to go.

After going through that we vim'd into authorized_keys with the web cli, added his pub key and tried to ssh, no luck. While verifying the key we found out that the web cli had not parsed the key properly and basically fucked up the file entirely.

After some back and forth and trying everything we became grumpy, different browsers didn't help either and even caps lock was inverted for some reason. Eventually I executed plan B and vim'd into the ssh daemon's settings to enable root login and activate password authentication. After all that we could finally use ssh to setup the server.

What an adventure that was 😅

Exactly

Getting your web app working on mobile Safari and iOS like the other browsers is the worst nightmare, like in the old days with IE. It has a lot of stupid restrictions and lacks support for browser standards.

I am some Kind of angry right now.
Some of you may know the App "Jodel" (for those who don't: it is an app which lets you talk to strangers at in your city/near your location)

I am in an informatics-Channel and I feel a bit annoyed.

There is a groundless hate against JavaScript or Java, it seems because... People feel cool? It remembers me of the PHP-Hate. Clueless people are talking shit, even if the web is not even their programming-field of activity.

Someone just said that in js you can do any shit and it works.
- you can leave out semicolons. wow.

Another one meant that one problem is the unlogical backwards-conpatibility. "You have to look if the script is running on the browsers and on your engine."
- Isn't that part of any programming language? To see if it works?

I don't know what to say right now.
#ilovejs

Uhm btw.: Can someone explain me, what he meant with "engine"? I mean there is an interpreter, but "engine"?!

Today a functional analyst said to me : The display need to be always the same, zoom or not. I think she don’t know how a web page work.

If you don’t know how a web page work, read on the subject before starting to argue with a web dev.

All the web browsers - "yay i like being browser because of all the cookies"

Damn, we seriously need a more professional system to test (the appearance of) our web apps in all browsers.

Also especially the resizing behaviour with flex items & Co.

What do you use for that? It can be a paid solution, if it is not too expensive.

Web browsers correcting "ttps://" to "https://" is so damn convenient!

Scenario 1) Server -> proxy -> client
Scenario 2) Server -> proxy -> 2nd proxy -> client

Scenario 1 works on some web browsers
Scenario 2 always works

Web Developer should not worried much about the older browser and modern browser. If people want to visit today's website without any problem, they should upgrade their browsers.

HTML Writers Guidelines

When designing your web site you want to make the visiting experience as enjoyable as possible and at the same time make it so that if the site needs to be changed in any way, the changes are not too difficult to make. You want the look to be as appealing as possible for all browsers and also make the site accessible to users with disabilities. In order to accomplish all this there are some general guidelines when creating your HTML code.

1. The first thing that will really make your life easier is through the use of Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) - CSS is used to maintain the look of the document such as the fonts, margins and color. HTML directly on the page is not a good choice to handle these aspects because if say, the font color you are using for certain paragraphs needs to be changed from blue to red, you would have to go in and change each color tag manually. By using CSS you can designate the color for each of those paragraphs just once in the CSS file. That way if you have to change the font color from blue to red you make one change instead of the countless number of changes you might have to make, especially if your web site contains hundreds of pages. This is a big time saver and a must for all professionally designed web sites.

2. Don't use the FONT tag directly in your HTML code - This becomes a problem when using some cheap authoring tools that try to mimic what a web page should look like by using excessive FONT tags and nbsp characters. These tools end up creating web pages that are impossible to keep maintained. There is a program you can use, if you've created one of these disaster pages, called the HTML Tidy Program which you can actually download here . This will clean up your code as well as possible.

3. You want your web pages readable to people who have disabilities - People who surf the Internet depend on speech synthesizers or Braille readers to interpret the text on the page. If your HTML markup is sloppy or isn't contained in CSS the software these people use to read pages have a difficult time in interpreting these pages. You should also include descriptions for each image on your page. Also, don't use server side image maps. If you are using tables you should include a summary of the table's structure and also associate table data with the correct headers. This gives non visual browsers a chance to follow the page as they go from one cell to another. And finally, for forms, make sure you include labels for form fields.

By following just these three guidelines you give your visitors, especially disabled visitors the best chance of having an enjoyable visit to your site while at the same time making it so that if you have to make changes to your site, those changes can be made easily and quickly.

!rant
I'm finally learning to incorporate multiple desktops into my workflow. So far, I like how it segregates my social programs from my web browsers from my code applications.

For web devs here, do we really still need to support browsers of the evil (yeah I'm talking about MS browsers, Edge included) ?

I mean, building a css ui library here in 2017, without the benefits of custom properties, grid and so many other cool things, is so fucking frustrating.
A practical example : color theming with custom properties = Fuck Yeah / color theming without custom properties = so verbose and painfull, sucks.

The library is mostly for private usage at the moment so... I'm about to drop IE and Edge in the deepest shithole of the darkest cavern of my memory, and move on coding my lib with modern CSS, with almost no regret for the ghosts of the past who are still using these shitware today.

Should I ? Or should I... maintain compatibility as we traditionnally do ?
What's you guys opinion about this ? Can we finally kickban these browsers from our lives ?

Us users would never accept data lock-in for photos and videos from the camera app on smartphones.

Yet, for some reason, we accepted data lock-in for saved pages on mobile web browsers.

While Indian govt. talks about digitizing the country and is pushing ahead with it, their Employee's Provident Fund Org (EPFO) infra is absolutely shit and it's killing small time business that want to help their employees.

You need to add Digital Certs to do just about anything (great security wise) BUT,
The digital sign interface is written in Java Flash, that was dropped by all modern browsers 4 years ago.
The only stable working latest browser for it is Firefox 52 released 3 years ago.

The USB tokens used/supported are all Chinese that don't respect OSS drivers and fork built their own (read Watchdata) with no/shitty and cumbersome linux support (couldn't get it working after 2 nights of trying different versions of drivers).
You still have to run Windows to sign the docs or to interact with EPFO using legacy browsers from 2016

Non Tech problems: EPFO charges 500 Rs/month minimum admin charges, and I pay 1200 Rs PF for my driver. That kind of commission is plain stupid and will make small employers run away from paying PF for their employees.

Any interaction with EPFO is like having to eat thorns. painful, unnecessary bullshit. How useless can someone be building such a system released in 2019?
I just hope they fix it. A simple google search shows there is Web Crypto API for modern browsers. Someone wake these people up. SMH

The trend of mobile browser URL bars only showing the domain name and hiding the rest of the URL needs to stop.

This trend appears to have been introduced by, guess who, Apple with iOS 7, and Samsung has copied it to their browser to look oh-so-"minimalistic", even though it has no benefits at all.
Even desktop browser Opera had this bad design at some point.

Silent post 🔕

Okay I got a genius/exceptionally stupid idea.
Some of you may know Xi. If not, it's an, in development, text editor backend, written in Rust.
It does all the heavy lifting and communicates changes with the Frontend over an rpc-api, typically on stdin/stdout.

Now, why don't we do this, but for other kinds of applications, that have been reinvented a million times, because a feature is missing or the ui has been shit.
Cross-Platform backends for file-managers, web browsers, password managers, media players,...

I need to figure out a way uniquely identify each computer which visits the web site I am creating. Does anybody have any advice on how to achieve this?

Because i want the solution to work on all machines and all browsers (within reason) I am trying to create a solution using javascript.

I appreciate the help. Thanks.

EDIT:

Cookies will not do.

F*ck u IE, f*ck u. You are the worst browser.

In today's episode of "Am I paranoid already?" - Caching Bind resolver forwarding queries to a DoH client connecting to Cloudflare

A fun little thing to configure, and now, anytime I am on my VPN, all my DNS traffic should be completely untrackable.

Does that make me paranoid? Maybe a little... But, the knowledge that noone - not even my ISP, can see what I am doing on the internet, is kinda... Heartarming.

Now, all that's left, is for eSNI to roll out and get implemented by all major web browsers, and most snooping will be completely done for...

If your SPA doesn't work with the browsers navigation buttons . . . go fuck yourself and fix your application.

At work I have to deal with an application that manages work tickets. There's a login page, an overview console and a page for each individual ticket (and a whole bunch of other pages that I'll ignore for this rant.) If I click on a ticket to view it I go to a new page, right?

What happens if I want to go back to the overview? I hit back on my browser. That should take me back!

WRONG

Nope. Because it's a single page application with no fucking routing programmed, the browser still thinks that the login page is the last page so it takes me there instead.

Like come on, good UX/UI design takes advantage of what the user expects and what the user is used to. The user expects the back button to take him back one page, and therefore it is the responsibility of a SPA developer to mimic that capability in his app. I don't know what framework this web page uses (it has none of the recognizable hallmarks of React or Angular) but for gods sake, implement a freaking router.

The CORS implementation has made the web overall less secure. It insists on the 99% pain in the ass solution rather than the 98% easy to use solution. So what happens? People work *around* it a lot, and that degrades web security overall.

Had *.mydomain been available as a header value, it would have been fine. Update your CORS headers? Good luck when your users' browsers have a cached copies of the old headers. Instant CORS violations.

How did mid-2000s computer users get along with just 1 GB of RAM or less?

As of today, anything less than 8 GB of RAM seems impractical. A handful of tabs in a web browser and file manager can quickly fill that up.

Shortly after booting, 2 GB of RAM are already eaten up on today's operating systems.

When I occasionally used an older laptop computer with 6 GB of RAM (because it has more ports and better repairability than today's laptops; before upgrading the memory), most of the time over 5 GB were in use, and that did not even include disk caching.

It appears that today's web browsers are far more memory-intensive than 2000s web browsers, even if we do similar things people did in the 2000s: browsing text-based pages with some photos here and there, watching videos, messaging and mailing, forum posting, and perhaps gaming. Tabbed browsing already was a thing in the 2000s. Microsoft added tabs to their pre-installed browser in 2006, back when an average personal computer had 1 GB of RAM, and an average laptop 512 MB!

Perhaps a difference is that people today watch in 720p or 1080p whereas in the 2000s, people typically watched at 240p, 360p, or 480p, but that still does not explain this massive difference. (Also, I pick a low resolution anyway when mostly listening to a video in background.)

One could create a swap file to extend system memory, though that is not healthy for an SSD in the long term. On computers, RAM is king.

It seems to me that browsers lagging behind is the reason we've seen the JS framework boom both in recent years and ongoing, evident in what they regard as major updates. Most of the functionalities implemented in my time working on the front end are high level problems ubiquitous enough to have been solved at the browser level. Same goes for all the optimizations CSR frameworks are struggling to attain. Every CSR app genuinely feels like recreating a browser, both in UX and dev requirements. These problems exist because current browsers are analog software still accustomed to loading all content at once, no in-app state, just scroll states

The React-Vue-Angular wars of today are a direct hat-tip to the Netscape-Microsoft wars of the early years. If they can form a coalition that sets a standard for syntax, best rendering engine, natural way for user facing devs to control app state, fetch data or connect the back end, somehow render this on the server or find a workaround SEO issues on CSRs, etc, given the shared agreement on expectations for modern web software, it'll be fascinating to see such a possibility

It's 2022 and web browsers are still unable to unfollow redirects.

If I open some URL in a new tab and it redirects me to /503.html or similar due to some server errors (which is bad design to begin with), there is no way to see which URL was redirected from. The "back" (←) navigation button is greyed out, so there is nowhere to go back to.

One might open a new tab to look at it later without realizing it redirected to an error page. Then one opens it, sees /503.html, and has forgotten which article one was going to read.

Only on the mobile edition of Chrome/Chromium, switching between desktop and mobile view unfollows the redirect. But on Firefox mobile, Chrome/Chromium-based desktop, and Firefox desktop, there is no way to know which URL redirected me there.

The reason there aren't independent web browsers anymore is that the web standards include a lot of concepts that should never have been standardised and their presence in the browser as opposed to compilers and interpreters targeting the web has no benefit whatsoever.

If we are able to use our cars for 20 years, shouldn't smartphones and web browsers be the same way?

Even though it is better to update software, old versions should not be excluded because otherwise a digital dark age comes closer.

Has anyone built a p2p data/video-stream application between a native java peer and a web application? I walked through some really promising webrtc tutorials, but it seems that webrtc is for browsers only.

Dear web developers, please think of the boot disk users.

Users might have to boot their computer from external bootable media such as a live USB stick, SSD, or live CD/DVD, after their operating system caught a problem that prevents it from booting.

Emergency boot media usually has earlier versions of web browsers because they are not frequently used, much less updated. Sadly, the developers of many websites have a habit of breaking compatibility for older web browsers. For example, the new audio player used by the Internet Archive (Archive.org) does not even support Firefox 57, a version that was released as recently as November 2017!

Therefore, websites should retain support for old web browsers. If not all features can be made to work, at least the essential features should work on older browser versions. Websites should not let down people who are stuck due to a computer problem. Those users should still be able to browse the Internet for help, and perhaps enjoy basic entertainment such as watching videos (YouTube, Dailymotion) and listenening to music or audio books (SoundCloud, Internet Archive) while at it.

The attached screenshot shows something no internet user wants to be "greeted" with.

Keep the Internet accessible.

Q: Why is windows better than linux?

A: Cos when you download zoom on windows, you can be pretty darn sure that it will work without you having to debug stupid permission issues. Linux would be dead if web browsers weren't a thing.

> Webpack is a great tool!
> Webpack config is easy!
> Webpack bundles everything!
> Runs webpack, no errors are displayed!
[it's weird]
> Opens web browsers dev console and see lots of errors!
> Uncaught ReferenceError: All your work is undefined!

firstly, does anyone know of an online telegram or whatsapp group where i can ask silly stuff regarding web dev and get immediate answers, just like it is here?

secondly i am trying to learn js and there are just too many related terms that are messing with my brain:
"some features are supported ines5/es6/es15/es16/es17 , some are supported in chrome's v8/chakra/spidermonkey/android browser , some features are only supported in "serverside" and blocked in all browsers thanks to browser's vm environment; babel can't read this code, some features are provided only by node js..."
WHAT THE MESS IS THIS?

All i am trying to do is to write code that would make a website visible to everyone. if by specific browser , i want to target, chrome and its subsidaries and android chrome/other android browsers .
for other browsers am willing to make external converters later but don't want to change my code by 1 bit. And from what i know, each browser (at least the browsers am thinking of supporting) has the complete JS compilers already built in

can i or can i not built a complete functional website with those things?

and finally my main question : how to make custom exceptions in vanilla js? i saw this answer on stack overflow:
===================
function InvalidArgumentException(message) {
this.message = message;
// Use V8's native method if available, otherwise fallback
if ("captureStackTrace" in Error)
Error.captureStackTrace(this, InvalidArgumentException);
else
this.stack = (new Error()).stack;
}

InvalidArgumentException.prototype = Object.create(Error.prototype);
InvalidArgumentException.prototype.name = "InvalidArgumentException";
InvalidArgumentException.prototype.constructor = InvalidArgumentException;

Usage:

throw new InvalidArgumentException();
var err = new InvalidArgumentException("Not yet...");

=====================================

where is the error code? what would be the exception details? what is the line number/timestamp of error?why is that function making an error, i thought error/exception is a class in JS?

Gf asked me to help her with getting science articles. She had some page that her university suggested students to use, but had troubles with downloading documents.

At first I was like "Hey, it says use IE, other browsers are not supported. Thats bad but.. whatever". Then it popped that she needs Java enabled - well, I guess we have to... Even updated it cause it was needed.
Restarted IE, clicked download again and... Java security blocked web app... Eh, I don't trust it but whatever, just let's check what if I whitelist it.
Got some basic view, 1 dropdown list for "file name format" (like anybody cares), path selection where to save file, and some checkbox. Lame, but let's just leave it behind.
Downloaded, it turned out to be html file, not pdf, fishy that it was single file, but hoped for some text styled with css, so I opened it and got redirected to page where I clicked download.
Checked that file content - html with empty body and script tag containing js that redirects on load.

Srsly?😐

First time would be when I had two teachers working of a bug that resultet in the CSS not loading / updating properly. It took me around 1 hour as well to realize that the text file was encoded with some obscure windows encoding, that doesn't load chrome (and maybe other browsers) can't load properly.

Thanks notepad++, will never use you again for web development.

Second time would be when I presented an app I made too the same teachers in order to boost my mark. Bugs that never appeared before every where and the basic functionality of the app was questionable. I hadn't worked on that app for half a year and had to fix as much as possible in a short amount of time, which might have made it worse.

Don't ask why but thanks to my knowledge about the france language I got a better mark, even though it was spanish

ENOSPC = random things go wrong.

There are many synonyms for ENOSPC, like "disk full", "space storage full", "space storage exhausted", "no more space left on device", and those other repulsive errors. For the sake of simplicity, I am going to refer to it as ENOSPC.

If you are in this condition on the operating system partition, get out of it quickly or random things will go wrong. Text editors which write directly to a text file rather than creating a temporary file and then replacing the text file could end up blanking the text file, softwares' configuration files might fail saving which causes a reset, and web browsers might spontaneously reset cookies and lose history.

For example, Firefox has created a gap in the web browsing history, as shown here. The history that is now memory-holed initially appeared to have been recorded successfully. Apparently, a failed write to the places.sqlite database when closing the browser created this gap.

So... Here it is
I am working in a web application thay only works on IE (I know, it is not my fault), and I asked the programmers that started this project, if we can start using it in another browsers but they told me that it is not possible because 'some javascript may not work in other browsers'.

Is this really possible or they just don't want to code for compatibility with other browsers?

It's these individually tiny annoyances in products and software that together form a huge annoyance.

For example, it's 2022 and Chromium-based web browsers still interrupt an upload when hitting CTRL+S. This is why competition is important. If there was no Firefox, the only major web browsers would, without exception, have this annoyance, since they're all based on Chrmoium.

I remember Chromium for mobile formerly locking scrolling and zooming of the currently viewed page while the next page was loading. Thankfully, this annoyance was removed.

In 2016, the Samsung camera software was updated to show a "camera has been opened via quick launch" pop-up window when both front and rear sensors of the smartphone were covered while the camera was launched by pressing the home button twice, on the camera software Samsung bundled with their custom version of Android 6. What's more, if that pointless pop-up was closed by tapping the background instead of the tiny "OK" button or not responded to within five seconds, the camera software would exit itself. Needless to say, this defeats the purpose of a quick launch. It denies quick-launching while the phone is in the pocket, and the time necessary to get the phone out could cause moments to be missed.

Another bad camera behaviour Samsung introduced with the camera software bundled with their customized Android 6 was that if it was launched again shortly after exiting or switching to stand-by mode, it would also exit itself again within a few seconds. It could be that the camera app was initially designed around Android 5.0 in 2015 and then not properly adapted to Android 6.0, and some process management behaviour of Android 6.0 causes this behaviour. But whatever causes it, it is annoying and results in moments to not be captured.

Another such annoyance is that some home screen software for smartphones only allows access to its settings by holding a blank spot not occupied by a shortcut. However, if all home screen pages are full, one either needs to create a new page if allowed by the app, or temporarily remove a shortcut to be able to access the settings.

More examples are: Forced smartphone restart when replacing the SIM card, the minimum window size being far too large in some smartphones with multi-windowing functionality, accidental triggering of burst shot mode that can't be deactivated in the camera software, only showing the estimated number of remaining photos if less than 300 and thus a late warning, transition animations that are too slow, screenshots only being captured when holding a button combination for a second rather than immediately, the terminal emulator being inaccessible for the first three minutes after the smartphone has booted, and the sound from an online advertisement video causing pain from being much louder than the playing video.

Any of these annoyances might appear minor individually, but together, they form a major burden on everyday use. Therefore, developers should eliminate annoyances, no matter how minor they might seem.

The same also applies for missing features. The individual removal of a feature might not seem like a big of a deal, but removing dozens of small features accumulates to a significant lack of functionality, undermining the sense of being able to get work done with that product or software when that feature is unexpectedly needed. Examples for a products that pruned lots of functionality from its predecessor is the Samsung Galaxy S6, and newer laptops featuring very few USB ports. Web browsers have removed lots of features as well. Some features can be retrofitted with extensions, but they rely on a third-party developer maintaining compatibility. If many minor-seeming features are removed, users will repeatedly hit "sorry, this product/software can not do that anymore" moments.